"State ran" news
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: "State ran" news
(05-09-2013 09:30 AM)Caveman Wrote:  1. State-run media litteraly read out what the government tells them to read out.
2. Corporate media interprets government released facts in a way that suits the corporation.

In the 2nd case you have a choice of several different outlets.
Excellent example: the Trayvon Martin case. Neither side was completely honest there.

So a better ran government media would have opposing viewpoints, but just slightly enough to make the difference not really tangible in any way.....nice idea. For example one could say, "Obama should do a short term bombing campaign". And the other would say " Obama should do a lot more than a short term bombing campaign". Different, but they revolve around the same premise. "Obama should drop bombs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: "State ran" news
(05-09-2013 11:10 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 09:30 AM)Caveman Wrote:  1. State-run media litteraly read out what the government tells them to read out.
2. Corporate media interprets government released facts in a way that suits the corporation.

In the 2nd case you have a choice of several different outlets.
Excellent example: the Trayvon Martin case. Neither side was completely honest there.

So a better ran government media would have opposing viewpoints, but just slightly enough to make the difference not really tangible in any way.....nice idea. For example one could say, "Obama should do a short term bombing campaign". And the other would say " Obama should do a lot more than a short term bombing campaign". Different, but they revolve around the same premise. "Obama should drop bombs.

Nope.
Any media ran by a government is untrustworthy. The people employed can only give out the information the government gives out.

So it would be: President Obama said today that Syria is bad and we are going to save the poor Syrians.

Couple that with the fact that state-medias usually mean there are no opposing media allowed and you understand that a voice must be independant and have more than 1 source.

Another example: official state media told the people that Kim Jong-Il went and tried golf for the first time. He got 11 holes-in-one.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: "State ran" news
(05-09-2013 04:32 PM)Caveman Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 11:10 AM)I and I Wrote:  So a better ran government media would have opposing viewpoints, but just slightly enough to make the difference not really tangible in any way.....nice idea. For example one could say, "Obama should do a short term bombing campaign". And the other would say " Obama should do a lot more than a short term bombing campaign". Different, but they revolve around the same premise. "Obama should drop bombs.

Nope.
Any media ran by a government is untrustworthy. The people employed can only give out the information the government gives out.

So it would be: President Obama said today that Syria is bad and we are going to save the poor Syrians.

Couple that with the fact that state-medias usually mean there are no opposing media allowed and you understand that a voice must be independant and have more than 1 source.

Another example: official state media told the people that Kim Jong-Il went and tried golf for the first time. He got 11 holes-in-one.

Cool, government sources for news are untrustworthy.

Just where do you think corporate news in the US gets its info on foreign affairs?

For example: where did the corporate news get the idea that Iraq had WMD. Weren't they just repeating what the government said, just like a state ran media.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 06:39 PM
RE: "State ran" news
State run media has a political agenda as it's ultimate objective.
Corporate run media has profit as it's ultimate objective.

Neither has truth as it's as it's ultimate objective. They may stumble into truth but only insofar as it furthers their ultimate objective. They will distort or ignore the truth when it doesn't.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 12:45 AM
RE: "State ran" news
Pointing out that a media outlet is state run only points out the likely bias when that media outlet reports on issues that the state may want covered a certain way. So if North Korea News reports that the dear leader has implemented new policies to increase crop yields 100% when we know of starvation conditions in the country from other media reports, it would be appropriate to point out that North Korea News is state run when evaluating the story.

But a state news designation isn't necessarily only used to trash credibility. If a state supported media outlet reports negative news about it's own government, pointing out that the news outlet is state run increases the credibility of that report. So, for instance, if the BBC reports that the UK has secretly been supporting rebels in Syria, we would be justified in considering that report more credible since the UK would not want that kind of story and the details about a secret program discussed in public.

It is useful to point out corporate ownership of news outlets when they are reporting on stories that directly affect the interest of their company. Taking CNN as an example, any story CNN reports about the movie industry should include pointing out that the parent company owns a movie studio. If NBC reports on the cable television industry, there would always be an asterisk to the report pointing out Comcast owns NBC.

It is a journalistic standard to point out direct conflicts of interests when a media outlet reports stories that affect whoever runs or manages that outlet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:35 AM
RE: "State ran" news
(06-09-2013 12:45 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Pointing out that a media outlet is state run only points out the likely bias when that media outlet reports on issues that the state may want covered a certain way. So if North Korea News reports that the dear leader has implemented new policies to increase crop yields 100% when we know of starvation conditions in the country from other media reports, it would be appropriate to point out that North Korea News is state run when evaluating the story.

But a state news designation isn't necessarily only used to trash credibility. If a state supported media outlet reports negative news about it's own government, pointing out that the news outlet is state run increases the credibility of that report. So, for instance, if the BBC reports that the UK has secretly been supporting rebels in Syria, we would be justified in considering that report more credible since the UK would not want that kind of story and the details about a secret program discussed in public.

It is useful to point out corporate ownership of news outlets when they are reporting on stories that directly affect the interest of their company. Taking CNN as an example, any story CNN reports about the movie industry should include pointing out that the parent company owns a movie studio. If NBC reports on the cable television industry, there would always be an asterisk to the report pointing out Comcast owns NBC.

It is a journalistic standard to point out direct conflicts of interests when a media outlet reports stories that affect whoever runs or manages that outlet.

What mainstream corporate media has journalistic standards?

Corporate ran news in the US repeats government released stats about the economy which are skewed to give a false picture of an economy getting better when in reality it is not (for the common worker). Again I am trying to find a DIFFERENCE in how the corporate media reports and how state ran media reports things. So far I see no difference when examining specific examples.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: "State ran" news
(05-09-2013 05:59 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 04:32 PM)Caveman Wrote:  Nope.
Any media ran by a government is untrustworthy. The people employed can only give out the information the government gives out.

So it would be: President Obama said today that Syria is bad and we are going to save the poor Syrians.

Couple that with the fact that state-medias usually mean there are no opposing media allowed and you understand that a voice must be independant and have more than 1 source.

Another example: official state media told the people that Kim Jong-Il went and tried golf for the first time. He got 11 holes-in-one.

Cool, government sources for news are untrustworthy.

Just where do you think corporate news in the US gets its info on foreign affairs?

For example: where did the corporate news get the idea that Iraq had WMD. Weren't they just repeating what the government said, just like a state ran media.

To your example: Yeah, they ate up what the administration said without any sort of own investigation.
But then you are talking about the U.S. government, even if there was some Press investigation, I think they probably had their lie pretty well covered.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 06:18 PM
RE: "State ran" news
I refuse to participate in this thread any longer unless you begin using ran and run correctly. Tongue

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: "State ran" news
(06-09-2013 06:18 PM)Heathen Wrote:  I refuse to participate in this thread any longer unless you begin using ran and run correctly. Tongue

Run away...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: "State ran" news
(06-09-2013 02:35 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 12:45 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Pointing out that a media outlet is state run only points out the likely bias when that media outlet reports on issues that the state may want covered a certain way. So if North Korea News reports that the dear leader has implemented new policies to increase crop yields 100% when we know of starvation conditions in the country from other media reports, it would be appropriate to point out that North Korea News is state run when evaluating the story.

But a state news designation isn't necessarily only used to trash credibility. If a state supported media outlet reports negative news about it's own government, pointing out that the news outlet is state run increases the credibility of that report. So, for instance, if the BBC reports that the UK has secretly been supporting rebels in Syria, we would be justified in considering that report more credible since the UK would not want that kind of story and the details about a secret program discussed in public.

It is useful to point out corporate ownership of news outlets when they are reporting on stories that directly affect the interest of their company. Taking CNN as an example, any story CNN reports about the movie industry should include pointing out that the parent company owns a movie studio. If NBC reports on the cable television industry, there would always be an asterisk to the report pointing out Comcast owns NBC.

It is a journalistic standard to point out direct conflicts of interests when a media outlet reports stories that affect whoever runs or manages that outlet.

What mainstream corporate media has journalistic standards?

Corporate ran news in the US repeats government released stats about the economy which are skewed to give a false picture of an economy getting better when in reality it is not (for the common worker). Again I am trying to find a DIFFERENCE in how the corporate media reports and how state ran media reports things. So far I see no difference when examining specific examples.


One difference is the particular bias each type would have. Of course, all media have biases. It's somewhat foolish to expect the straight news on all topics from all media outlets. The problem many of us have with your often cited sources is that you do not acknowledge any bias from your own sources, and hold them up as unadulterated sources truth.

There is one other big difference. Some governments effectively stamp out independant news sources--i.e. Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Russia. The more alternate sources of news are shut down, the less a government and its remaining state media can be kept in check. If Fox news or MSNBC betray their journalistic charge by allowing bias into their reportage, we all know that this will be uncovered, exposed, and discussed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: